tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post116020596195890600..comments2016-11-30T20:44:36.586-07:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Kant's Categorical Imperatives and Desire UtilitarianismAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1160233756486263332006-10-07T09:09:00.000-06:002006-10-07T09:09:00.000-06:00Hello. Chanced across your site. Good to see som...Hello. Chanced across your site. Good to see someone sincere in their efforts to understand this dimension of life. Wanted to offer my perspective, probably for the same reasons you write your blog.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Kant:<BR/><BR/> "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law".<BR/><BR/>and your application of your understanding of desire-utilitarianism:<BR/><BR/> "Act on that desire that you can will to be a universal desire".<BR/><BR/>For clarity, I'll paraphrase his as "act as you want others to act", and yours as "act on desires you want others to have". Kant's says the action is the important thing, yours emphasises the motivation. But, if someone is seeking ethical insight by consulting such advice, they implicitly desire to act ethically, and it is on the assumption of this desire that we derive defensible actions from your guideline. Clearly, when the desire is to act ethically, both versions reduce to the same advice.<BR/><BR/>Separately, both guidelines give no guidance regarding what characteristics acts or desires should have before we should want them to become universal. By saying "do/feel what you're happy to have others do/feel", we invite anything from anarchy to public sex to enforced racial segregation: all would look at these guidelines and desire that others join them in their desires and acts. These guidelines are therefore dangerously incomplete.<BR/><BR/>Unless you formulate some categorical imperatives you have no foundation on which to discuss ethics. Guidelines like you discuss are important sanity checks on an ethical framework, but not suitable foundations. For most philosophers, the imperatives revolve around some manner of assumed inherent equality with others (which is arbitrary, but if people don't accept that then their interest in ethics is over, so they won't be writing much and participating in the debate), coupled with a notion of what makes life worthwhile (which is also arbitrary, and much debated).<BR/><BR/>And, by way of context and introduction, a short "bio" of my own ethical standpoint. My ethical reasoning evolved in ignorance of, but came into alignment with, Buddhist ethics. Now, I believe Buddhist ethical reasoning to be perfectly rational, complete and coherent, and have not encountered an ethical problem in which I felt it suggests a suboptimal outcome. Still, I do question some of the religious context (reincarnation, vegetarianism) from which this reasoning is applied. Summarily, this system identifies causes of suffering in others - longing, lust, expectations held too closely, aversion, hate, and indifference - and simply says all actions should aim to free people from the mindset in which they suffer, and allow them to engage in life in a psychologically "free", guiltless, joyous, and wise way, acting to improve all aspects of life, but understanding and accepting the inevitability of setbacks. Ultimately, people are responsible for attempting to predict and optimise the consequences of their actions against this single categorial imperative of psychological advancement.Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06991802277691757882noreply@blogger.com